User:Deepfriedokra/promo

This is a more in depth explanation of why I delete pages under WP:CSD#G11, "exclusively promotional", in addition to them just plain reading like an advertisement. Caveat lector. I have the highest threshold for honoring speedy deletions of anyone I know. There are no guarantees that following this advice will avoid deletion. The best advice I can give is avoid laudatory adverbs and adjectives.

First, a word about sourcing. (See WP:V and WP:RS.) Information in an encyclopedia must be from reliable sources, unconnected with the subject, and with a reputation for fact checking. Someone must have written a great deal about a subject in depth and must have verified the accuracy of what they wrote. For the most part, that means major media outlets-- books, magazines and newspaper, in print and online. For the purposes of avoiding a promotional tone, add the criterion "objectively". One would think that a review that calls a product the best thing ever would assert notability. In an encyclopedia, it just comes off as promotional.

Now some examples of content that provokes a visceral response in me or might otherwise qualify for G11. These should be avoided to maintain a neutral tone. The presence or absence of the following is not a litmus test for meeting WP:CSD#G11. It is the overall tenor of a page that must be considered.

Mission/Vision statements, CV's, resumés, personal blogs . . . .--

• "<<Insert name here>> has a goal of/sees itself as providing the best product/service for the money, achieving a leadership position in all that is right and good, achieving the best customer satisfaction ever."

• "advocacy ... effectively"
• "executed"
• "formulating policy"
• "many leading companies
• "pro actively"
• "provides services-- <insert list here>
• "renowned"
• went to " top educational institutions"

If you went to school to learn to write such content, I am truly sorry. This is never appropriate in an encyclopedia. If you cannot see how promotional this is, again I am sorry. You have much to unlearn. This by no means an exhaustive list. Just what I jotted down in a few minutes. You get the drift. When you write a resumé, you are trying to tell an employer why they should hire you. You are, in effect, promoting yourself.

BTW-- If you've submitted a resume disguised as an article or a user page, know this-- "references" does not mean employment references. See WP:RS. Again.

Flowery language/peacock terms. Wikipedia:FLOWERY offers a nice start on words to avoid. Beyond this, one must be careful and sparing in the use of adverbs and adjectives, especially comparatives and superlatives. Anything that reads like a book/album/product review will probably be nauseatingly promotional.

In biographies, blog-like material such as childhood experiences, familial connections, connections with well known people or groups, social media links, and so forth may give content an advocational tone. Descriptions of the influence of childhood experiences on the subject's life come across as very promotional. These should all be omitted.

More words--

• "access "
• "accumulated"
• "affordable"
• "aim to simplify "
• "allows customers"
• "any"
• "____ approach"
• "assistance"
• "available in"
• "boast"
• "built-in ____"
• "carved"
• "cheapest "
• "commercially born"
• "commitment"
• "compels"
• "confidence"
• "consistently ranked"
• "dedicated "
• "define"
• "devised"
• "distinguished"
• "doesn’t cut corners"
• "dream-quest"
• "driven"
• "earned"
• "efficiently"
• "effortlessly"
• "empower"
• "enjoyed by"
• "experience"
• "expertise "

• "family business "
• "Fantabulous"

• (is/as/was) featured in . . .

• "flawless"
• " flexibility "
• "focusing"

• "foresee"
• "For more than ___"

• "forward-thinking"

• "full control"
• "fun"
• "giving our users"
• "gripping "
• "guidance"
• "hand-crafted"
• "handful "
• "has reached the milestone"
• "helps"
• "high-performance"
• " idea for sharing "
• "initiatives"
• "introduced"
• "keeping up with the latest "
• "launch"
• "lead___"
• "lucrative"
• "making sure"
• "market leader"
• "most advanced"
• " most popular bargain"
• "most secured and trusted"
• "most updated "
• "niche"
• "obligating"
• "one-stop solution "
• "opportunity"
• "new product introductions"
• "pioneer"

• "please visit on my blog"

• "price reflects the quality of the product"
• "proud"

• "provides solutions"

• "pursuing his love "

• " ... quality"
• "... "rise above"
• "refined"
• "robust"
• "roots"
• " seek to create "
• "seeking to replace"
• "selects the most suitable"
• "sharing knowledge"
• " so that the <<whomever>> can be helped. "
• " special"
• "started by a <fill in the blank>"
• "started its journey"
• "state-of-the-art"
• "teach you the basics"
• " tech-savvy"
• "transform "
• "trustworthy"
• "unconventional "
• "____ understanding"
• "undertaking"
• "unique"
• "upliftment"
• " user-friendly"
• "valuable "
• "variety"
• "versatile"
• "was born well before "
• "We built a <fill in the blank> for <fill in the blank> in "fill in the blank" that unlocks access
• "You Deserve Better. You could have your website built on ___ , but it wouldn’t be worth it.

Again, by no means an exhaustive list. Just because it isn't cited here or above doesn't mean the new page patrollers or AfCers won't see it for what it is. Context is the key.

Words in biographies

• "achieve "
• "acknowledge"
• "based on science"
• "best"
• breaking (non sports) records"
• "commended"
• "completely changing"
• "deep knowledge"
• "exceptional"

• "finally"
• "fulfill desire"
• " goal" (non sports)
• "help "
• "high IQ"
• "hunted down"
• "invented"
• " launching to success"

• "one of the top"

• "perfect skills"
• "professional "
• "realization"
• " self-developed "
• "set sights "
• "sharp-minded "
• "talented"
• " true"
• young"

More on sourcing--

Book/album/product reviews are just plain too gushy. Such sources might provide objective data after dry-squeezing but probably won't go to notability. Content from company or affiliated web site, and social media is mostly written in a promotional tone-- ad copy. Corporate or affiliate web pages are obviously right out. Press releases and product release announcements, even in an otherwise reputable source, are just too not neutral. the community so abhors promotional use of the project that in deleting such articles, we do not address the issue of WP:notability. Even if objectively written, an article needs in depth sourcing of all content.

Businesses, organizations, groups, etc must meet this Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)

Beyond the foregoing

Taken as a whole, a page may clearly be unambiguous advertising even though it avoids the pitfalls mentioned above. Pages may be deleted under G11 because the gestalt of the experience is promotional, without singling out any particular items. Contact information and social media links in the content are like red signs flashing "G11" Price lists and fee schedules even more so.